Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taxation can be abusive and descend to the level of theft, but it is not theft by definition. Governments have a right to tax and their subjects have a duty to pay.
As for people receiving things they didn't earn, be careful ... "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." Doesn't that worry you just a bit?
First, semantics. You can call anything you want but the end result is theft, taking from the earnings from one to give them to another that did not work for them. Is that not the same action if I hold a gun pointing at you and taking the money you earned and I keep without earning it? In the case of the government instead of a gun is the stroke of a pen of taking the money you earned to give it to me.
Also, I did not say governments do not have the right to tax so your comment to the point of discussion i.e. distribution of wealth.
The moral quote proves nothing either way. You are simply citing a moral point that does not discuss whether redistribution of wealth is fair or not. Another irrelevant point regarding the OP redistribution of wealth. It does not prove whether it is good or bad, simply making some moral point. Take care.
Unfortunately the redistribution of wealth didn't just start with this president, the current situation started with changes to the tax system under FDR
When you look at our system, everyone is feeding someone else higher or lower than them. Just the way it works. Also, truly "earned" income is quite different from investment income...the latter on a humongous scale for those who do not, or never, worked due to being able to live off their investments. That is precisely where the unfair advantage is. All the wealthiest people in the world did not make their living off a working class job. The playing field has never been level. The top keep soaring higher and higher; the middle and bottom keep sinking slow but sure. BTW, where are all the jobs the barely taxed wealthy are supposed to be creating?
There is a different if states institute programs to help those that for circumstances in life and beyong their control need help. That is not what I am saying but people love to spin. However, to have socialist type programs that create a system that takes away from a whole group that make more to give to a whole group that make less is not the way to go. It does two things. One is that those that earn more tend to find ways to keep their hard earned money in whatever ways they can. This also results in less incentive to work harder.
The other one is that is does create a sense of dependency from others. It is best to help temporarily those that truly need help to get on their feet, not to forever simply because they earn less.
Investment income different? Why? If someone has the smart to take risks in investements and make money, what is wrong with that? He or she invested with the risk of either making more money or ending with nothing. That is what risks are all about in life. Sometime you win, sometime you loose. Investing is good because it helps create business for others to make money also.
The playing field never been leveled? I agree with you. In sports, do you compete to win or simply play? To win unless the specific is to simply have fun but in competitive sports the playing field is not leveled. Some sports team owners are more smart and spend more money to get the best players and win. People like to see winners. Winning is not bad at all. It makes people play harders to win. However, when winning is not the goal, why put effort? The same in business and in life.
Barely tax the wealthy? What is the percentage of the wealthy that they pay in taxes compared with others? What economic bracket pay almost no taxes and which bracket pays the highest percentage of taxes in our society?
The lower brackets want more and more taken from those on top. Eventually those on the top will not invest as much or move out of the country.
Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of money. Eventually giving the money from those on to those at the bottom will eventually run out. The result? A huge deficit that no one can pay anymore. Next? The government now tries to cut free programs and benefits because there is no more money. Look around the world in other countries when they now try to fix the program with austerity measure and the people are now used to the bennies and revolts because they now do not want to give up anything. Something has to give and eventually the consequences we all have to pay sooner or later. Take care.
Investment income different? Why? If someone has the smart to take risks in investements and make money, what is wrong with that? He or she invested with the risk of either making more money or ending with nothing. That is what risks are all about in life. Sometime you win, sometime you loose. Investing is good because it helps create business for others to make money also.
.
It takes money to make money. If you are earning only enough to live on (or less), you're not going to have a lot of funds for investment.
A 2 % return on $15,000 of savings is not much, a 2 % return on $25 million (the compensation of Exxon's CEO last year) is a lot of money.
You may think that sounds good ...all the way up to the point that we decide we will NOT be tax slaves any longer. We have enough. We'll stop working and will therefore no longer earn enough to be taxed. Then what? Who will you and your ilk steal money from then?Total BS. I'm not TAKING from others. Those who TAKE from others without earning it are the ones who are SELFISH and GREEDY. I earn what I get. I realize liberals HATE the concept of supporting themselves. But too damn bad.
Your local government probably is taking from others and subtly redistributing it to people like you; I can probably find redistribution in your local ordinances and regulations.
Nope. Not one single mention of welfare. Read it... P.L. 89-97
It's insurance.
Can I opt out of this insurance - can I self-insure?
You say I can't? Then what's your problem with Obamacare?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
